Long before the United States Supreme Court decided the landmark case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Judge Jack Weinstein had turned his considerable brilliance toward the problem of how best to integrate scientific research into legal decision making.
His approach was to bring a sophisticated critical eye to proffered scientific evidence, much in line with Thomas Huxley’s view that “science is … nothing but trained and organized common sense.” However, although Judge Weinstein has invariably brought uncommon common sense to the subject, many lawyers and judges have not. This is likely due largely to the lack of empirical training among the bench and bar.